Seconded.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
at 09 Jul 2000 16:28:52 -0500,
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, now that it appears to be a matter of interpretation,
> with two wildly different interpretations, I would not be averse to
> clarifying the language in the constitution about _changing_ non
> technical documents; indeed, I would be in favout of specifyihng the
> DFSG and the Social contract as special case documents in the
> constitution itself.
>
> We could add in the better than a simple majority clause for
> modifying the DFSG and social contract in at the same time; which
> would perhaps address the concerns of a number of people.
>
> Please consider this a trial baloon for that idea; if it seems
> like a good idea, perhaps we can get a constitutional amendment in
> that addresses the constitutionality of changing these documents (and
> allay the fears that some have about frivolous, or hasty, changes to
> core documents for the project).
>
> manoj
PGP signature
